Where is Rees Mogg?? Wasn't off the screens during all the brexit shenanigans, haven't seen or heard from him on tv or radio since the election was called..
General Election 2024
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
- Status
That's so much. A couple of decades ago most political parties in Norway came together to ensure "full kindergarten coverage", by both building lots of new kindergartens and putting a cap on the price. Currently it's around £225/month, but it's getting lowered to £150/month soon.
Today ~85% start kindergarten between the ages of 1 and 2.
... my wife (God bless her) has just looked over my shoulder and said "you look more like George Clooney than him".Then I turned around and realised she did not have her glasses on.... oh.. but for one second my spirits rose
We sold our oil fields so are not reaping the benefits of them.
That is very interesting thank you.
The current plan is for 15 hours of funded nursery or 11 hours if you want to cover bank holidays.
Stress funded but not free as many patients will have to pay more where the government funding doesn't cover the nursery fees.
I have to say that I don't actually know what the government funding covers as it is on an hourly basis.
If 90% of parents pay £12k a year for day school, the other 10% would have to pay £55k a year in order to get to the average day cost of £16k+. This seems unlikely.
Edit: Also, as has been explained to you, fewer than 30% of 3-4 year olds get 30hrs of nursery per week - let alone go full time (50 hrs) and this is with government subsidies. You seem to be comparing apples to oranges.
Last edited:
Sunak was the 123 Kid. Getting a win over the 'made man' that for anyone else would have launched his career and instead it'll only be remembered for having a tepid at best reaction named after him.
Sorry, this maths doesn't add up. If 9 out of 10 parents are paying 4k per term and 1 kid out of 10 is going to a school like Winchester is 13k per term, that averages out to.....5.1k/term. The average is clearly not being pushed up by a tiny minority at independent schools.
Again, who are these working people? I've given you statistics on the income levels of the UK.
Its completely OK to want to send your kids to private school. Every parent wants to do the best for their kid individually, that is normal. It is not OK to paint it as the reserve of some parents who work just a bit harder and smarter than others, when almost a third of kids in this country live in child poverty. It is categorically untrue that most working parents could afford private school if they just cut back from their daily latte or their 3 trips abroad every year.
It is the societal impact it produces, whereby you get a whole group of people (including much of the ruling elite), who don't care about the state of public sector education because they went to private (or I guess sometimes grammer schools) and subsequently send their kids to the same. Perhaps the state schools would be better if god forbid Hunt, Sunak et al had to actually send their kids there?
Probably trying to con enough people to actually vote for him. Although it does seem that he wants to have his cake and eat it, being an MP and on TV.
I think I’ll try. But we may look into moving where the free Grammar School education for secondary school is very good. The VAT would be a huge incentive to do this.
Calling Starmer Razor Ramon is awful. Poor Scott Hall.
making Nanny count his money.
But we have been told earlier on by someone who sends their children to private school that they are better. Albeit, the description of better has not yet
been quantified.
But you make such an important point here. That of the vast increase in child poverty under this shameful government.
The one thing I'll say and where the policy probably doesn't make much sense is that it doesn't really change the ability of the super rich to continue paying for these schools. The likes of Hunt, Sunak (if he stays in the country after he loses, which he won't), the various lords and dukes or whatever, rich international parents etc etc will continue to send their kids to these schools and will continue to inhabit these privileged spaces and build these privivleged networks etc.
Who it will exclude (and where much of the angst seems to be coming from) are the upper middle classes. Lawyers, some well off doctors, small business owners etc, who may now struggle to afford the fees.
I have sympathy with the idea that it does little really to actually improve the situation of state schools, while potentially entrenching the access to these schools to the 'genuine' elite only.
Who it will exclude (and where much of the angst seems to be coming from) are the upper middle classes. Lawyers, some well off doctors, small business owners etc, who may now struggle to afford the fees.
I have sympathy with the idea that it does little really to actually improve the situation of state schools, while potentially entrenching the access to these schools to the 'genuine' elite only.
The policy isn’t about exclusion, it’s about raising taxes from people who can afford to pay taxes.
Many grammar schools have better academic results than private schools. Where private schools seem to be of benefit compared to comprehensive/grammar are:
-Better and broader facilities (especially when it comes to extra-curricular)
-Better support, especially when applying to elite universities later on
-A lifelong network of others from well off backgrounds (and their parents) who are going to be knocking around in the upper echelons of society
-A seemingly almost intractable self confidence, regardless of their actual abilities.
Basically, a much higher floor. I've met quite a few of these kids who ended up in various well paid private sector jobs who would have struggled to match that achievement if they didn't receive all of the above.
Or that's my take anyway.
As above, some of those people may think they cannot and move elsewhere, particularly to grammar school areas. The likes of Sunak, JRM and Hunt won't give it a second thought and will continue paying without issue.
It sucks a little but of all the people struggling in this country, the few caught out because they might find it difficult to continue to send their kids private should be nowhere near the top of anybody's priorities.
Oh I agree. I've got quite a few friends who send their kids to private school (I choose not to) and I do feel for them a little but in the grand scheme of things, they're not really the ones who are struggling in this country.
I am talking about it more from the global perspective, of how the private schools perpetuate inequality and an entrenched ruling class. Removing some of the middle class from the group able to pay and leaving it to the super rich only is probably not the way to do so. Not that I'm pretending I do know.
That's why it sucks a little. I'm sure there are some that have scrimped and saved because they were just on the cusp of being able to afford it and now feel short changed - but there are always casualties in policy decisions. Ultimately I don't really buy that a small proportion of the merely wealthy getting to send their kids private does much to move entrenched inequality one way or the other.
It's not a policy I'm particularly fond of but it's going to net what £1 - £1.5bn per year? If that's redistributed to state schools then I guess there's probably a net benefit to society.
Christ, his hands are massive!George Clooney lookalike will stand as candidate in Winchester
https://www.hampshirechronicle.co.u...QVd3DyWIXOHy8mzLv8_aem_GNOnXKJ7Df0hW0XlgjBIrw
Uproar over the private school stuff is laughable. Cry me a river.
There are others a lot more exclusive that cost a lot more, Eton is sixth most expensive as an example and you are not taking into account international students who go to the most exclusive private schools and pay triple the price.
I'm basing my analysis in the experience at our school. A lot of parents are by no means well off but some of them have 2-3 kids at the school and that can only be achieved by sacrificing elsewhere. It's no surprise that the majority are Asians, Black and Eastern European. They want to give their kids something that they never had in their life.
So we're in agreement it's not a policy to raise money, but to poke at the perceived class war.
Some of them are paying 24 - 36k per year? And you think that is in within the ambit of the majority of working folk?
You get sibling discount and 2 working parents with a 35k job can achieve that yeah.
Show me the maths. That's already nearly double the median household income by the way.
£35000 a year - assuming no pension contributions or student loan - would work out to about 2.4k per month net. So 4.8k per month if we assume both parents, it gives around 57.5k per year available if there are no living expenses at all.
As far as I'm aware, International students don't pay more for fees in British private schools compared to British citizens? I've been on a couple of the websites and it doesn't seem to mention any of that at all?
I specifically only mentioned day schools with regards to fees because I'm sure even you would agree that £40k fees are not within the grasp of most working UK parents, regardless of how much they try to cut back. However, fine, let's take literally the most expensive school in the UK . Seemingly this is concorde college, at £18,000 per term for full boarding.
9 students paying 4k a term. 1 student paying 18k a term (even though again this is a boarding pupil but whatever, let's run with it). This gives a median of £4k per term or a mean of.....£5.4k per term.
This is still not hitting the £7k per term for day school fees, let alone the £12k per term average of boarding.
Families who are sending 3 kids to a 4k/term private school, even with a 25% 3rd child discount, are paying £21,000 per year on their kids education alone. And this is at a school that doesn't come near the average day school fees. Your take home pay in a median household income in the UK, from a gross of £45k (which @Buster15 tells me is actually higher than it really is), is around £36k. Assuming you're contributing nothing to your pension. If you genuinely think a lot of the parents are not well off, you either have a very distorted view of what well off means, or those people are not being completely upfront with you about their finances.
I'm not sure we do agree because a class war would be something to affect the upper classes, which this policy does not (as they can continue to pay the school fees comfortably regardless).
So again, nobody is saying all the parents are flying around on helicopters. But the average parent sending their kid to private school is not exactly just getting by, regardless of how much they scrimp.
Edit: Just wanted to clarify by the way that I am really not trying to attack you or your decision to send your kids to private school at all. I know this may be how its coming across, especially online but that isn't my intention. I'm just challenging some of the figures you've put out.
Last edited:
Imagine waking up and deciding to defend the affordability of private schools like it's the last bastion of the free world.
University fees are also non-VATable. How would you feel if VAT started getting charged on this too? Don't you think it's Labour opening pandoras box? VAT on nursery fees?
Better - probably the wrong word. A school that increases the likelihood of achieving top grades which opens up my kids opportunities.
As someone who was privately educated, yeah cry me a river indeed. We have a near unprecedented cost of living crisis, millions of children on the brink of poverty, and national services in a near-collapse, dilapidated state. Perhaps the focus should be on making state teaching a desirable profession once more, and investing heavily into our state education. If parents want to give their kids an edge there's always grammar schools or private tuition if they feel their kids need the extra boost. Both are far more affordable options anyway, and one I intend to take my children through despite being able to afford going the private route.
All I can say is that the money has got to come from somewhere. We are all charged vat when we buy a service.
For example, I recently had to pay almost £2k vat when I had a new high efficiency gas boiler installed which will use very little electricity thus saving a great deal of CO2.
But a neighbour was given a huge government subsidy to have a Heat Pump installed.
There are always anomalies.
Last edited:
More people will benefit from the private schools policy than those who will 'suffer' from it. That's generally what I'd consider a good policy. If you feel it's what ultimately decides your vote then that's up to you.
What is the state-funded alternative to nursery?
Yes and I echo your Edit comments.
What's the state funded alternative to a load of other things (like that gas boiler from above) that have VAT on them? Do you trust the government?
It's just about raising money by applying VAT where it should be applied, but up to now has not been.
It may well turn out to be an exercise akin to 'looking down the back of the sofa for fifty-pence pieces', in what is eventually delivered. However, if the state of our national resources are really as bad as some make out, then a lot of this scouring the sofa's; taking bottles back to get the deposits returned, running a Government 'Nectar points' type of scheme on certain products and services; applying variable points rates, 'wartime-rationing' type exercises etc. (if you are under 70 you may need to look this up in text-books to get what it's about, 'black markets' and all).
All these types of schemes will be needed if general taxation is not to be increased, but the 'hit's' will have to be low on the poor and higher on the rich.... no getting away from it.
As bland as Starmer can sometimes be in his manner and oratory, he is just the sort of man who my old dad would have said " he can pick your pockets, but make you feel he has taken a weight off your shoulders".
Last edited:
It's not about trusting a government, they give state-provided education. If people then choose private education (which my parents did for me and my sister, sacrificing a lot of other luxuries) then they should pay tax.
The 'tax on nurseries' is both moot and disingenuous as there's no state-provided alternative.
- Status